David,

> > One thing that has always bugged me is the notation x at y. X is not AT y.
> > We'd need another notation for forming vectors and the only thing that
> > comes to mind offhand is -> which is as bad, but at least it looks like a
> > vector, sort of. Binary creation methods:
> >
> >    2 -> 3
> >    2 -> 3 -> 4

I never saw a notation like this.  I always imagined a vector like this:

 (  2  )       ||  2  ||
 (  3  )  or   ||  3  ||

How do we emphasize this in Smalltalk?  Well, we can easily construct
a 1-form:

  (2, 3)

Then if our geometry has some kind of duality (which can be as general
as we want), we can write the vector in question as (2, 3)*.

Regards,
Boris